I think that Ted's analysis is accurate. However, it seems to me that
his point (3) is moot. As I understand it, the YECs have a package, and
they feel threatened when any part of that package is questioned, and
that is what makes a dialogue with them so difficult.
Don

>Let me add to my comments recently, concerning Hyers and hermeneutics, the
>following points.
>
>(1) Hyers' essay is part one of two parts. The second part, "THe Narrative
>Form of Genesis One," appeared in the next issue of the old JASA in Dec 84.
>It is also on the ASA website, as far as I know. Reading the two parts
>together (both of them based on his book, incidentally), it is abundantly
>clear that Hyers holds the "framework" view of Genesis.
>
>(2) The framework view can be used to support *either* an OEC *or* a TE
>interpretation of Genesis. It can be coupled with assumpations/conclusions
>about historicity or with assumptions/conclusions about non-historicity.
>The OECs tend to do the former, the TEs tend to do the latter. The
>framework view itself, IMO, does not settle that dispute. An example of an
>OEC/historical framework view, which the authors themselves conceive of as a
>type of "concordism," (their word), is the section on Framework in The
>G3N3S1S Debate, ed. David Hagopian, which I have discussed here before.
>They believe the Genesis creation story is making historical claims about
>creation, human creation, and the fall. However, consistent with their
>framework commitment, they deny that Genesis is chronological--a contrast
>with (say) Hugh Ross or Bob Newman.
>
>Hyers is an example of a TE/non-historical framework view, as far as I can
>tell. Authors in this category tend to emphasize the ancient literary,
>religious, and cultural context more than authors in the first category,
>IMO. That is, they tend to see the form of the story being a "given" from
>the existing genre of ancient near east cosmogonies, and the content being
>revelational to the Hebrews.
>
>An intermediate -- or perhaps I just can't tell -- approach would be the
>excellent book by Henri Bloucher, In the Beginning.
>
>(3) Theoretically, the framework view can also be consistent with a YEC
>view--or, at least with a young earth and with creationist views of
>humanity. B/c it denies the chronological nature of Genesis One, however,
>the YECs denounce this view. This suggests to me that the literalness of
>the days in sequence is even more important to the YECs than is their
>commitment to the "young" earth itself, with all that implies about
>evolution and death before the fall. Comments are invited.
>
>Ted
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Feb 1 15:57:15 2007